Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and the Government for the considerable amount of aid that they have given over many years to support the refugees from Western Sahara, who live in camps in Algeria, but can the Under-Secretary help me? What pressure has been put on the United Nations to ensure that the people of Western Sahara have a free choice and a vote in a referendum to decide on the future of their territory, which we believe to be occupied by Morocco illegally at present, and thus allow people, who have spent 35 years in refugee camps, the right to return home and resume a normal life?

Nicholas Winterton: Robert Mugabe leads a criminal and illegitimate regime and should be treated as such. With millions starving and one in five children dying before their fifth birthday, is it not time that the South African Development Community and the African Union did more? Is it not very saddening indeed that Russia—a country that seeks to be part of the modern world—supported by China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution? What are we going to do about it?

Gordon Brown: I told him in the House in the exchange that we had last week that the majority will be no worse off or better off as a result of what happened. If I may say so, the Conservative party said it would support action against pollution. The leader of the Conservative party said:
	"there will be tough choices to make for the environment and I won't shy away from them for one moment".
	The principle is that the less-polluting cars pay less, the more-polluting cars pay more—that is what he said to the House. On 19 March 2007, he said:
	"telling people...that you can go green without paying the price. That's not leadership. That's not substance"
	but that is what he is trying to do now.

Gordon Brown: It is very unfortunate that the actions of a few people have brought into disrepute the whole House of Commons. It is very unfortunate, because the vast majority of people who come to this House want only to engage in public service. The principles that underline the approach that the Leader of the House is announcing are that there has got to be the maximum transparency, the maximum external audit, the end of the so-called John Lewis list and to refer these matters to the Commons Committee looking at these very issues, with a view to having a cap on mortgage interest relief and a cap on other expenses. That is the right way forward, and the right hon. Gentleman should admit that there have been problems that he has got to deal with.

Gordon Brown: Our defence budget is rising every year, and it will continue to rise. We will not allow the training of our defence forces to remain inadequate. We now have the second biggest defence budget in the world— [Interruption.]—as a percentage of national income. We want to ensure that our troops are properly staffed and equipped, and that is what we will continue to do. That is why we continue to spend money not just on defence but on all the urgent operational requirements of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Ann McKechin: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on public bodies to co-operate with the police and specified local authorities on the use of closed circuit television; to require certain users of CCTV to provide specified information to the police; to require insurance providers to promote the use of CCTV systems; and for connected purposes.
	There has been much debate recently about the level of surveillance in our society. The debate is worth having, although much of the dialogue has been conducted in a fit of hysteria that bears no relation to the reality of our everyday lives. Widespread use of photography and film is here to stay—the relevant question is how we regulate its use to provide legitimate protection of the public and property while at the same time ensuring that our citizens' rights and freedoms are properly protected.
	Time and again, constituents request closed circuit television coverage in areas where vandalism, thefts, drug dealing or violence have repeatedly occurred. It is not an alternative to proper policing or crime prevention strategies, but decent quality CCTV evidence can certainly make a material difference in bringing forward a prosecution. It often records the type of crime that can be difficult to prove by other means.
	Just a few weeks ago in Glasgow, we experienced within one week the tragedy of the murders of two innocent women. The first, Moira Jones, was murdered when arriving back at her home in the south side of the city and the second, Eleni Pachou, was murdered at her place of work in my own constituency. In the same week, there were also reports of five women who were subjected to sexual attacks in broad daylight, all within the space of less than two hours, in the centre and west of the city. Such events are thankfully unusual, but their occurrence over such a relatively short time understandably caused a great deal of fear and alarm. To the credit of Strathclyde police, suspects in all three cases have now been apprehended and it is clear that CCTV evidence played a critical part in the investigations.
	The use of such evidence is now a routine part of police inquiries and it is much more common as a means of pursuing a prosecution in the UK than the use of DNA material. Perhaps not surprisingly it results in far more guilty verdicts, leading to a consequent reduction in police time and expense tied up in trials. In the case of random attacks, it can also help to prompt evidence from witnesses who may not have been aware that they were in the vicinity of a crime at the time of the offence, or that their evidence could be material. Importantly, it can also eliminate innocent people as suspects.
	However, when police gather CCTV evidence, they have to collect it from a wide variety of sources that currently do not have to follow any compulsory code or minimum requirements. It is estimated that there are around 400 town, public or municipal and city-centre systems in the UK, and perhaps up to 1.5 million privately owned and operated public-space CCTV cameras.
	It is important to distinguish between the two groups. The public systems have a primary purpose to provide public safety and, accordingly, they need to include the ability to provide evidential recording for police incidents. In Greater Glasgow, we have the GCASS system, which oversees the use of CCTV coverage in places where the public have unrestricted access and also co-ordinates action by the police, local authorities and the major social landlords.
	However, even with that level of organisation, Strathclyde police find it difficult at times to persuade all the local authorities in its force area to contribute to the revenue costs, which run at approximately £3,000 to £4,000 a year for each fixed camera. The force also has to interface with 16 separate public systems that use different equipment and processes. This leads to both police and prosecutor's staff being tied up in time-consuming evidence gathering and having to spend long periods of time in preparing evidence in a format acceptable to the courts. Regretfully, it is still a requirement in many Scottish courts that such evidence be shown in analogue rather than digital format, despite the fact that the latter is much less costly and is speedier.
	On the other hand, cameras on private property that allow for a public presence, such as shops and bars, are much more likely to be primarily a property protection scheme. However, given the scale of private coverage compared with public systems, it is evidence from private cameras that, on the whole, will provide the majority of film evidence in a crime incident. During last year's terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, for example, I understand that more than 70 per cent. of the film and photo evidence came from such private sources.
	When a serious incident occurs, police have to contact all public and private owners in the vicinity, first to check whether they hold such equipment and secondly to ascertain whether film has been kept that is of a quality capable of being of use. The major problems that police face when collecting such evidence is the poor quality of the images and the fact that redundant technology is used because of a failure to invest in appropriate equipment.
	Speed is also vital, as some owners routinely destroy film within a couple of days, and others within a few weeks. However, the police do not necessarily know that, and there is no requirement on equipment owners to provide details. In addition, owners of smaller, more basic systems may be unfamiliar with the mechanisms required to download the data. It has not been unknown for it to take several weeks to be able to obtain some film evidence. It is also not uncommon for cameras not to be working at all or to be wrongly positioned so that no relevant evidence can be obtained. All of these problems can have a direct effect on the ability of police to arrest the perpetrator of a crime.
	If we believe that all of us, as citizens, should take some level of responsibility in relation to the crime on our streets, then I do not consider that it is unreasonable to expect those who operate CCTV systems to have a duty of care to the general public by following best practice and keeping equipment in good working order. Public trust could dissolve easily if there were increasing evidence of misuse, and that is why we need to guard against poor handling of data by persons with little or no training. We also need to guard against the degrading of data to keep costs low by reducing quality for convenience and cheapness of storage, and the use of worn out and redundant equipment.
	However, I also accept that, given the scale of their use and the fact that many of these cameras are operated by small business, sometimes as a requirement of their insurers, it is important to avoid undue bureaucracy and administrative expense. The Bill accordingly proposes a proportionate response that builds on the recommendations of the Home Office report issued last year for a national CCTV strategy, and the voluntary code promoted by the CCTV user group that acts as an industry body.
	First, the Bill would place a statutory duty on public bodies such as local authorities, transport groups and housing associations to work together with their local police force to achieve a streamlining of public systems. That would give greater efficiency and reduce administrative costs. One example of how such an obligation could be of use at a fairly minimal cost is for all CCTV used only for traffic monitoring purposes to be given basic digital recording equipment suitable for police use, and an image-retention facility.
	The Bill would also place an obligation on authorities to contribute to the costs of co-ordinating such systems where, as in Glasgow, the system is maintained by a large metropolitan authority that covers a number of smaller council areas. Secondly, the Bill would require private organisations that control large areas that are open to the public, such as cinemas, hotels, shopping centres or large bars and clubs, to provide the local police force with up-to-date information on the type of CCTV system that they use, on how long they preserve film for, and on how the system is maintained. Given that many such premises are already licensed by local authorities in some way, I would argue that the additional obligation should not be unduly onerous. It would allow the police to map town and city centre locations where there is the highest footfall, and to provide information to private users on the best way to maintain and operate their systems.
	Finally, the Bill would require insurance companies to promote an agreed code of practice with their business customers. That could include requirements relating to: the type and scale of equipment that should be used, and appropriate to the site size; use and location; the training that should be provided to staff; and the adoption of regular maintenance contracts. That would have the benefit of securing an improvement in the overall base quality of the use of CCTV in this country and of providing a platform for minimum standards that can easily be reviewed and altered.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Ann McKechin, John Robertson, Mark Lazarowicz, Rosemary McKenna, Nia Griffith, Helen Jones, Angela E. Smith and Miss Anne Begg.

Andrew Tyrie: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. and Learned Lady has just been saying, but with regard to communication with constituents, does she not think that the time has come to look again at the communications allowance? Is it not the case that, as the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee said, it is an exercise in shameless self-promotion? Has not the communications allowance, too, brought us into disrepute, and is it not time we reviewed it?

Simon Hughes: Yes, I would be, because the House made a bad mistake on 3 July. This is a brave move and the Leader of the House is right to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House.
	I start with what I hope will be non-controversial comments, so I guess that what I say after that will be more controversial. First, I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to our staff. We could not do the job the public expect of us without our extremely hard-working, diligent and committed staff. They are often in the front line of people's life tragedies, dramas and pressures, which sometimes means that they encounter threats of suicide, fears of eviction tomorrow, deportation today and so forth. The reality is that they do a fantastic job.
	Let us be clear. At the moment, the allowance for our staff is something between £90,000 and £100,000. To put it simply, that means that if we have four staff fully on the payroll as I do—two here and two in my constituency office—and if we include national insurance, they are receiving something in the order of £20,000 to £25,000 each. That is the amount if we divide the cake four ways. If we had fewer staff, they would of course get more, but this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about staff earning £30,000, £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 as part of a staff team; rather, it is a wage that other people with the same abilities working in the private sector would vastly exceed. I hope that we are clear about that and that it is not a matter of dispute. Our staff do a very important job for us.
	We need to clarify what happened in the famous debate of 3 July. Some areas were not controversial and were agreed. There were 14 substantive recommendations from the Members Estimate Committee: they were unanimously proposed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and Mr. Speaker.
	Of those 14 recommendations, those on constituency offices, communications, of which there were two, and travel, of which there were two, went through without any dissent. Two substantive issues, emanating from the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), were disputed and were not agreed. First, three different recommendations put forward a clear proposal, which everyone here will understand:
	"We recommend that, with immediate effect, Members should no longer be able to claim reimbursement for furniture and household goods or for capital improvements".
	Secondly, it was proposed that
	"new MPs elected to the next Parliament to represent constituencies in outer London should be eligible to claim half of any overnight expenses allowance; and all MPs representing those seats should be restricted to claim half the standard rate".
	That was to deal with the perceived abuse surrounding colleagues in outer London who were claiming in respect of two homes, irrespective of the fact that they lived just over the line between inner and outer London and were actually able to get home relatively quickly. They received the full allowance on the same basis as a colleague living in Orkney, Shetland, Cornwall, west Wales or the like.
	The third proposal that was not accepted was that
	"the Additional Costs Allowance be adapted into an overnight expenses allowance, comprising a £19,600 maximum budget for accommodation (excluding furniture, household goods and capital improvements) but operating on the basis of itemised reimbursement and a flat rate of £30 for daily subsistence."
	That was the proposal and it meant that MPs could have furnished accommodation, stay in a hotel or have the money for the purchase of accommodation as well as a daily rate for subsistence, but that the allowance did not include furnishing.

Harriet Harman: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that and accept the word that I have given the House, which is that the work that I was undertaking was under way, following the 3 July vote. I had discussions with, for example, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Comptroller and Auditor General long before we realised that an Opposition day debate was tabled, and indeed discussed with them the value of a written ministerial statement. So I had already discussed the timetable of the written ministerial statement with them. I think the hon. Gentleman should withdraw what he said. I take offence at what he has said about what I have told the House. The work was under way; it was not a response to the Opposition day debate, and he should not choose not to believe me on it. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has put a 12-minute on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You made an intervention a few minutes ago about the value of the House of Commons. We need to keep in proportion the fact that this is a House of Commons debate, and that we are an important part of Parliament. I will return to that in my final remarks.
	I will not follow the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in relation to the European Parliament, which is not my remit. He made some other pertinent points, however, to which I shall refer during my speech.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who is still in his place and follows such debates as a great parliamentarian, has a great dislike of the communications allowance. It is remarkable how often that view is reflected on the Conservative Benches. In an age in which we get little from our media and have to deal with our constituents through the prism of the media, I would have thought that an allowance that enabled Members of Parliament to communicate with constituents in a non-partisan way about what we are doing would be welcomed throughout the House. The hon. Gentleman would certainly welcome the fact that the MEC report proposed to freeze the allowance at £10,000 for three years from next April.
	I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), as I did her speech on 3 July—she made the speech that I would have made, so it saved me from making it. I agree with many of her points, certainly in relation to the role of the National Audit Office and the thorough work that it is doing now, which will continue. One of the ironies of today's debate, and the proposal to extend the role of the National Audit Office to do an audit of 25 per cent. of MPs throughout the whole Parliament, is that that was a recommendation of the MEC. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has now taken it on board.
	The issue that has created the most mayhem among Labour Members is that of practice assurance, which was intended to assist MPs in their roles before they ever got near a National Audit Office full audit. According to our paper, the essence of the scheme was:
	"to help Members compile and record better evidence of their claims; to check on the uses to which parliamentary resources have been put rather than (as now) verifying only the initial expenditure"—
	getting behind the signature, as we said—
	"to clarify rules and guidance; to set a standards framework; to improve office systems and avoid errors; to support both internal and external audit."
	There was a system behind that recommendation which enabled Members to put their house in order if need be, without reference to the dreaded Standards and Privileges Committee. That has been removed by the will of the House, and we are now faced with a simple audit.
	As we go along, we will need to find out what was the purpose of those audits, to what purpose they will be put, and to whom they will refer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who is no longer in his place but follows such debates, was perfectly right: the NAO is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, audits are exempt from that, and there would be no question of reporting to FOI people that there was an audit and what the consequences were.
	I was not able to speak in the 3 July debate, which was truncated and covered two subjects: addresses and allowances. I do not propose to use my time today to go through all the arguments that took place then. The MEC had a clear view from the beginning—which was 24 January, when the Government gave us the review, rather than February. First, it was to reassure the public, and secondly, to do so in a way that enabled MPs to carry on their jobs in a complex society, which imposes great demands, to which the Leader of the House has referred, in e-mails, the internet and a host of other ways. The question was how do we relate and give confidence to the public, and also allow MPs to continue with their work.
	Many comments have been made about the media coverage. We live in a world in which to keep in touch with civil society, the political society must cross the media bridge. If we cannot do so, there will be a great deal of criticism in the popular press and in our constituencies. There was no greater outrage than in my constituency Labour party when the MEC report was turned down. That was not a happy day for the House. Fewer than half the Members of Parliament voted on the matter, and that would be our criticism—not who voted which way, or which party voted for what, but that only half the MPs thought it appropriate to be here to vote on the question of their salaries and allowances.
	When the MEC report was published, and the members of the MEC—the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey)—gave a press conference, it was well received by the media, and that converted into being well received by the public. We had begun to restore the reputation of the House. That fell catastrophically, as we knew it would, when the report was rejected, which brought some damaging and serious headlines, which I will not repeat now. However, it was clear—the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey has touched on this—that matters could not be left as they were on 3 July. A number of recommendations had been accepted, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and other recommendations were hanging in the air. It was not clear how we were to go forward, but the Members Estimate Committee always said that it would fully respect the will of the House.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend not think that it would have been better with hindsight to have produced a draft report and consulted Members on both sides of the House? They could have put forward some suggestions and amendments so that we might have had a degree of consensus about the way forward when the final report was produced?

Stuart Bell: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, although I would point out to him that when the Government sent this issue down to the Members Estimate Committee on 24 January, we said that we would need until October to go through the report with the utmost care, to consult a whole host of bodies, such as the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Inland Revenue and outside bodies, and then to get the support, if we could, of the 1922 committee—the Conservatives' Back-Bench committee—the parliamentary Labour party committee and then the House. We failed to do that. It is clear that our report had public support through the media, but it did not have the support of the House. The reason for that—I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on this—is that we did not have the time. If we had had more time, we could have looked at the issue more carefully, taken other matters on board and explained what we were trying to do, but we were not able to do that in the short time that we had. It would also have been preferable had the House been able to discuss allowances separately from pay, but the two came together on the same day, and things got very confusing and very confused. The result was not what it might have been, and the consequence is that we are here today debating the matter again.
	Although this might be ironic, the fact is that it is a Conservative Opposition day motion that has brought the issue to the Floor of the House and which gives me the opportunity to make the speech that I could not make on 3 July. I am aware that the Leader of the House has had discussions with the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Comptroller and Auditor General and that she has been very active since 3 July. I entirely accept what she has said about those discussions, but the fact is that the time scale for this second debate is longer, and we are therefore able to make some points and to take on board what the Government are now saying in their ministerial statement. I would surmise that we would still have had the ministerial statement had we not had today's debate.
	On the ministerial statement, I welcome the commitment of the Leader of the House to bring within the purview of the original decision by the House an extension of the powers of the National Audit Office to cover all the allowances in the green book, as the MEC proposed, rather than just the additional costs allowance, as well as travel, staffing costs, incidental expense provisions for other office costs and the communications allowance.
	I welcome the fact that the green book will be rewritten—another recommendation by the MEC—and that that will be carried out by the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances. I wish the right hon. and hon. Members on the panel well. We met them and discussed our report with them as we went along, and I know that they are diligent and will seek to equate the interests of Members with those of the taxpayers who fund our Parliament.
	I welcome, too, the statement by the Leader of the House that the National Audit Office should report to the Members Estimate Committee, which already includes three external members. Incidentally, I also welcome the fact that the work of the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances will also be assisted by two independent members.
	I also welcome the assurance from the Leader of the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General believes that there is an opportunity, given the additional evidence to be provided in support of all claims, significantly to strengthen the assurance that public money has been properly spent.
	The House will decide on the motion and the amendment before it. I have enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but the House must bear it in mind—this brings me to your original comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that what was at the forefront of the MEC's thinking in its review was the reputation of this House, balanced with the interests of Members. We have heard many comments about the role of Members and their heavy work load. On our salary and allowances, I have consistently taken the view that it is a privilege to be a Member of Parliament, and that privilege must be guarded with a sense of responsibility.
	The Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead have referred to the fact that the reputation of the House has taken a battering over these past few months, but the House may soon have the power to declare war and it may take over the royal prerogative. It debates and decides on major issues, such as war and peace, human embryology, radical changes to society, justice and civil rights. It is still the fulcrum of the nation in times of crisis and of debate on national issues. I remember the debate on the Falklands war. I was not in the House at the time, but perhaps other hon. Members were. There was a debate in the House on the Saturday morning after the Falkland Islands had been taken over by the Argentines, and the question was what we should do. The entire nation listened to our debate on the radio—we were not on television in those days—which shows how important the House of Commons is in our affairs.
	Restoring and enhancing the reputation of the House must be a matter for us all. If what we are doing today will add to the reputation of the House in a manner that is transparent and which gains public support, we may find ourselves on our way towards achieving that. I therefore support the Government's statement and their amendment. I wish the advisory panel, which is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), well. I also wish the National Audit Office, the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department of Resources, the Members Estimate Committee and the House of Commons Commission well.
	There is a great deal of work to be done in the House between now and the general election to restore the reputation of this Chamber and this institution. If we fail to do that, Members of Parliament—whoever we are and from whichever party we come—will be castigated for failing to get a grip on the matters of perception that so involve our constituents. As the Leader of the House said, we do not live in an age of different regimes. The regimes have changed, and we must change. We must be responsive to public opinion. We have failed up to now. Let us hope that, from this day forth, we begin to re-establish the reputation of the House of Commons.

David Maclean: I am running out of time and I do not want to be bogged down on this issue.
	We looked at the costs of renting property. If a Member is in this House for a few years—let us say 10, 12 or 15—and they rent a property, the rental costs are likely to increase every single year. There is a higher cost to Parliament in paying for rented properties than in paying mortgage interest costs. We are not here to abolish rented property or mortgage interest. We looked into the matter very carefully and we thought it was perfectly legitimate to let that be claimed. However, as I have said, we came up with a package. There is, of course, a benefit to a Member if they are lucky in the housing market, but I believe that some Members who left this House in 1997 were out of pocket, as property prices go down as well as up—as we are also discovering at present. However, there can be a benefit to a Member in owning their own property; there is the comfort and reassurance of ownership. In those circumstances, we thought we should not allow the additional benefit of £1,600 per year on average, which is the amount claimed on white goods in the so-called John Lewis list.
	I take on board the point that there is a higher start-up cost for new Members. What would happen if we were to go down the route proposed in the Government amendment? I am not totally opposed to it, although I will, of course, support the Conservative Chief Whip as I like the part in his motion about white goods. If that is lost, I wish the Government well in the procedures that are adopted. I say to them that if the National Audit Office is to be given this task, it will have to invent a list of the reasonable reimbursement costs for furniture and other household goods. The cap might be at 10 per cent., but our studies suggest that that is too high for continuing Members—we do not need £2,400 per annum to replace the essential items in our property—and too low for starting Members. I leave that as a problem for the NAO and the panel chaired by the right hon. Member for Warley to sort out.
	The other point that needs to be made robustly is that the overall amount of the ACA is about right. Before anyone in the media or elsewhere starts whingeing about it, the Senior Salaries Review Body examined it and concluded that about £24,000 was the essential sum necessary to maintain another residence in London. I hope that the Committee will examine this nonsense of having one property described as the main home and the other as the second home. It will probably have to do so to sort out the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), which is probably utterly unenforceable—that is a problem for others to sort out.
	When I entered Parliament as a new Member, my home in the constituency was my main home and my little London flat was my second home. When I became a Minister, things were automatically transferred without my having any say; I was told that my home in the constituency had become my second home and that London was deemed to be my main residence. When I subsequently entered Opposition in 1997, it all changed back, and it changed again when I was made Opposition Chief Whip. This is a nonsense, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is working on a paper, which he will submit to the panel chaired by the right hon. Member for Warley, on how we designate our properties.
	Three or four years ago, when I was Opposition Chief Whip, I calculated that in one year I had spent exactly 170 days here in Westminster, 170 in the constituency and 25 on holiday. In such circumstances, MPs do not have a main home and a second home; as Members of Parliament, we are required to have a firm base in London. We are not travelling salesmen, who can live in a different hotel room—a different Travelodge—each week, so we need that firm base. If we have bought a property, it needs to be furnished, and if we are to furnish our property and to keep some form of list, we must make a robust defence of the arrangements. I robustly defend the right of Members who are buying a property to furnish it and to have the proper kit so that they are not sleeping on the floor or on cardboard boxes.
	One may ask why I recommended the abolition of the John Lewis list. We thought that, taken in the round, robustly keeping mortgages, and defending the per diem rate of £30 and the £4,200 of the ACA was a package of measures that fairly compensated colleagues for the costs that they had incurred in maintaining a base in London. I will support the list's abolition, but if it is not to be abolished, I wish the Government, the right hon. Member for Warley and the NAO success in coming up with a definition of reasonable property and the reasonable kit to have that will persuade our friends and others in the media that we do not have our noses in the trough. We do not have our noses in the trough, but we must ensure that we defend our arrangements properly in future.

John Mann: I shall give way in a minute. The second issue, which, of those I have raised in the past year, is the one that I have majored on, is party political advantage. I shall cite the simplest example—the use of the dining facilities for party political advantage. Thanks to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and to my delight, that is now debarred. It is no longer possible, as the annual report of the Sevenoaks Conservative Association, in respect of which a registration has just been made with the Electoral Commission, makes clear. It states that the patrons' club has been terminated, saying:
	"The termination of the facility for dinners at Westminster removed the main attraction for members".
	That is highly appropriate; Parliament has moved on and has stopped the misusing of the facilities for party political advantage. It is important that we continue this approach. I have made a number of other challenges in relation to potential party political advantage, and I will continue to do so where there appears to be any such misuse of the remit of political office
	The third issue, which I particularly wish to discuss this afternoon, relates to the systems. This may come as a surprise to some on the Opposition Benches, but I have refused on a recurrent basis over recent months to comment on the so-called irregularities, usually of Opposition MPs, when I have been asked to do so, usually by the media. In these cases, what the individual has done, in essence, is to apply Parliament's systems. I shall cite no cases, because it would, by definition, be invidious for me to do so, but the issue is not the action of the individual, who has acted within the system—the issue is whether the system is right. That is where there remains a lack of realism not only within this House, but within the parties in the House.
	The systems are poor, they are not transparent and they leave each and every one of us, myself included, open to attacks by our constituents, by the media, by mischievous opponents and so on, precisely because they do not have the robustness nor the transparency that they require. I have tried to comprehend what the Government are putting forward today, and I hope that they are not in any way backtracking from the crucial principle that the general public have a right to know what we do, what we spend and how we spend it. If they wish to criticise me for anything that I have done in terms of my expenditure, they are free to do so and I will defend myself robustly. I may have a different view from theirs on what is and is not appropriate, but as their elected representative, I do not have a right to hide this information away.
	Strangely, in the years for which I have put this information on my website, nobody seems to have been particularly bothered about it. However, people are bothered about their right to know and about the rights of journalists to investigate. I hear many criticisms of journalists and the media in this debate, but I would go in the other direction: we could do with more investigative journalism in our newspapers, because it is a skill that seems to have died a death in this country. Parliament must have systems that are sufficiently robust and defendable, and absolutely transparent, so that we can feel comfortable.
	Our situations will vary. Frankly, I do not care whether people buy a property or not. That is a risk that they take, but they should be open about it. Situations will vary, depending on rental agreements. I read the official Opposition's proposals with some amusement. In essence, if as a renting MP one had an unfurnished flat but now cannot get one, one has to go back to the same landlord or landlady and say, "Well, I'll have to have a furnished flat." The rent will go up in order to provide that furnished flat, so the taxpayer will not necessarily get increased value for money. The different arrangements, which are obscure, mean that some things are more than average and others are less than average. Because I rent a room rather than a flat, for six years I did not have cooking facilities as part of the rental agreement. That meant that the rent was lower, but the situation was different.
	The issue is that the information is out there. If hon. Members want to look at my website—I recommend it—they will see that all that information is there among the campaigning issues. I am sure that it has been scoured through by Opposition researchers over the months—

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman says that they have better things to do, but there is the issue of party political advantage. One shameful thing during this episode has been the attempts by Conservative central office, when someone has had the effrontery to suggest that certain MPs should repay money, to give false briefings to the press to suggest things that are not there. That has been tried in my case over the past three months on three occasions. None of those attempts have got anywhere, because the information is false. The first was so farcical that the individual concerned had to apologise. I was also able to point out that he was in criminal breach of the Electoral Commission regulations when it came to his own visits, and I discreetly and politely corrected him on that.

Philip Hammond: Unfortunately, because we have not been given an interim statement from the Government, we do not know precisely what has happened to stamp duty revenues. I hear a whisper that they are substantially down, but that is a different argument, because we are talking about what is happening to oil prices and the impact on the economy of an oil price increase.
	As we are dealing with the Lib Dems, let me address myth No. 2, which is propagated, surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). For the purposes of shorthand, I shall call this the Lib Dem myth, although there are many Lib Dem myths. The hon. Gentleman, who likes to think he knows a thing or two about oil, says that the fair fuel stabiliser would require the Government to predict the future price of oil. I am surprised at him, because although I do not always agree with what he says, I find that it is usually based on fact, and nothing could be further from the truth than that comment. The stabiliser will mean that Government revenues will remain broadly the same, whether oil prices go up or down, because any windfall or shortfall from the North sea will be offset by a decrease or increase in fuel duty. The truth is that the present system requires the Government to predict future oil prices, when they make their revenue forecast in the Budget, thus leaving the public finances exposed to fluctuations in the oil market. Under the fair fuel stabiliser, that volatility in public revenues is removed, and the Lib Dem myth is demolished.
	We are consulting on the precise level of the reduction in duty that should be associated with any given increase in oil prices. The example we have used and published, where the fair fuel stabiliser reduces the price increases at the pump by half, is broadly revenue-neutral to the Treasury on a conservative estimate of £100 million of net revenue gain for each $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil—that is a far lower figure than the National Institute of Economic and Social Research's model predicts.
	At some stage this afternoon—I believe that this would be called a pre-emptive strike—I am expecting to hear from the Chief Secretary, in an attempt to shore-up the Labour myth, about the Institute for Fiscal Studies. She is fond of quoting that highly respected body when it suits her, but on this issue, for very good reason, it has little to say. The IFS correctly says that its modelling leaves it "unclear" about the precise size of the positive impact on the public finances from an increase in the oil price, over and above the cost of the 2p U-turn that the Government have done today. However, the IFS is in no doubt that the impact is positive.
	The Chief Secretary has produced the IFS's statement with a flourish, as though it demolishes the NIESR analysis. It does not. "Unclear" means precisely what it says and the IFS is unclear for a reason. It does not have a dynamic macro-economic model that would allow it to analyse the likely impact of an external shock such as an oil price increase. That is not the business that it is in. The NIESR has such a model and is in the business of conducting such analysis. It is the body with the authoritative view on the subject and the Chief Secretary can quote the IFS as loudly and as often as she likes—its position, which we have checked again with it during the past few days, is that it simply does not know the answer to the question because it has not done the work and, what is more, it does not have the tools to do the work. So, the Labour myth is demolished, too.

Vincent Cable: That is very helpful. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I acknowledge his point. The motion does not deal with differential rates; in fact, I think it would make that problem rather more complicated. None the less, I take his point and I am sure that it has been noted.
	Let me move on to a second point in the Conservatives' motion, which accuses the Government of dithering. They obviously like that work, because we keep hearing it—I know that it rhymes with "wuthering", which makes quite a good joke. However, if I were trying to develop a serious critique of Government tax policy, I am not sure that "dithering" is the word that I would use. After all, the main criticism is not that the Government have dithered, but that they keep rushing in with not very well thought out proposals—capital gains tax, non-dom tax and inheritance tax come to mind. "Dithering" is perhaps not the proper criticism.
	Perhaps, however, I could make a case for dithering. There is an argument for dithering in a case such as this. We do not know what the oil price will be in the autumn, and we have no idea what the revenue position will be. It has been rather embarrassingly exposed that the Government have not even made any preliminary estimates of that. Surely it would be sensible to wait until the autumn before rushing into a decision on fuel duty—

David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the comparative costs of haulage in other European countries. Although he is right about fuel, he must factor in two other elements of the cost equation: first, that corporation taxes on the haulage companies are lower in European countries; and secondly, that wage rates and suchlike are lower. Therefore, the overall cost of operation for companies in France, Holland and elsewhere is probably not substantially different from what it is here.

David Howarth: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my point was that a different aspect of the independent counsel proposal was raised twice—first in connection with this amendment and specifically because it offered an alternative way of dealing with this problem, and then later by itself. I still think that it is relevant to say that I was disappointed by what happened in the other place, where the Conservative party was slightly feeble.
	Nevertheless, and even though we still disagree on the fundamental point about equality of treatment, I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the more specific question. Is it intended that it should be possible for sensitive information about identity to be released to other defendants in multiple defendant cases in the indirect way that I have described?. The obvious intention of Lords amendment No. 1 is to stop that happening directly.

Iain Wright: I will certainly look into the point that the hon. Lady raises. We are keen to make it as quick as possible for home buyers and sellers to access the relevant information, and one of the ways of doing that is through online and e-conveyancing. I suggest that, if an estate agent is charging a fee for a hard copy, there is nothing to stop buyers printing a copy at home, if they so choose and if that option is available to them. The whole point is to try to rationalise the costs as much as possible.
	I want to move on to the central point of the hon. Lady's contribution, namely, the poor quality of HIPs and HIP providers. Given the policy objectives for HIPs—a greater degree of transparency in the home buying and selling process, more appropriate and up-front information, and higher levels of confidence—it is important for consumers to have clear routes to complain and obtain redress when standards have not been as high as they should have been.
	Most HIP providers subscribe to the HIP code. The HIP code provides protection for home buyers, sellers, estate agents, conveyancers and mortgage lenders who rely on the information included in a HIP provided on residential property in England and Wales. It sets out minimum standards which HIP providers have to meet. As part of the code, there is a formal written complaints procedure for handling complaints in a fair and prompt manner. The complaints procedure promises that complaints will be acknowledged within five working days of receipt, and normally dealt with fully within four weeks. If the consumer remains unsatisfied, they have the right to refer the complaint to the independent property codes adjudication scheme. The HIP code states that all providers who subscribe will fully co-operate fully with the independent adjudicator and comply with any decision reached.
	In addition, all HIPs and their providers who comply with the code will display the HIP code logo prominently on their literature and on the HIP itself. It is also possible for consumers to check whether a specific HIP provider subscribes to the code by contacting the Property Codes Compliance Board. In this way, reassurance should be provided to home buyers and sellers regarding the quality of the product that they are using and the professionalism of the firm that is providing it.
	Let me move on to the key point. Now that HIPs and EPCs have been up and running for 12 months, we can look at certain difficulties that we have encountered, particularly in relation to non-standard buildings. As the hon. Lady suggested, buildings in this country span a period from the middle ages to the modern day. Given the wide range of ages, spanning perhaps 700 years, it is perhaps understandable that we have had some degree of difficulty in regard to the operation of EPCs and HIPs.
	The software used to produce the EPC is called the reduced data standard assessment procedure—RDSAP—and it takes account of a wide range of features in a property, including its age and dimensions, the material used to construct it and whether there is cavity wall insulation, double glazing and so on. To keep the costs reasonable, the software has been developed to be simple enough to achieve consistency and to avoid requiring energy assessors to spend an unnecessarily long time on site. Since August 2007, something like 860,000 EPCs have been produced using this software, and the accuracy of the vast majority of these has achieved the agreed professional level.
	I am sure the hon. Lady would acknowledge that a balance must be struck between the time spent assessing a building, the associated costs of producing the HIP and the EPC, and ensuring that all appropriate features should be taken into account. As she mentioned, at present the software cannot take into account every possible feature in the insulation, the heating system controls and so on that a homeowner may have provided, and to input that at the start would have caused immense costs, making HIPs and EPCs uneconomic and counter-productive.
	It is also important to point out that an EPC is designed to be a description of the energy performance of the building rather than a description of the building per se. Nevertheless, we recognise that in a small number of cases, the RDSAP may not reflect the full complexity of a property. We will therefore update the software in September to allow additional data input where it is considered appropriate by the energy assessor.
	The hon. Lady will recall that on 14 January, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was the Minister for Housing and Planning, she wrote to her and addressed Mr. Dyke's specific point about cob construction. In that letter, she said:
	"This issue has been recognised by my Department, and the software will be amended to include cob construction, although using the sandstone descriptor is not likely to impact the rating significantly."
	I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady. In addition, if an owner wants unusual features to be taken into account, a full SAP calculation can be undertaken, but I am sure that the hon. Lady would recognise that that would need much more time and a more highly qualified assessor, so it would be likely to come in at greater cost.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady in respect of the three points she made. She mentioned that she is unhappy with the performance of HIPs and EPCs. In the light of current economic difficulties and particularly the drying up of mortgage finance, I would suggest that the last thing required in the housing market is needless tinkering. In the current climate, the industry and consumers want as much certainty of information as possible. As regards escalating fuel bills, for example, which were caused by a trebling of oil prices on the world markets, the importance of information about energy performance has never been so timely. In such a turbulent time as we are experiencing, I believe that HIPs and EPCs are an important and stable part of rationalising the home buying and selling process.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eight o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 14 July 2008: In column 5, delete "Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)" and insert "Helen Jones (Warrington, North) (Lab)".